Scarlet Blake - murder to officially recorded as a crime committed by a woman

[CousinGreg55]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/28/trans-cat-killer-scarlet-blake-crimes-will-recorded/

I know there are other Scarlet Blake threads but I thought this was significant enough to start a new thread.
According to The Telegraph the murder is to be recorded as a crime committed by a woman.

The judge said the fact that ‘she’ was transgender was not a consideration!

“Thames Valley Police adheres to the law and codes of practice, outlined by the Equality Act 2010, and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) Code C, when establishing and recording the gender of a person in our custody.”

Does the Equality Act say a crime is recorded according to gender, not sex?

What then do they do about rape a penis/male crime carried out by a transwoman (a person born a biological male? How then do they record it as being by a woman?

Being gay also does no physical harm to young people who feel this way, moreover, they can explore this but change their mind at any point in their life.

Another point, is that young people who are gender non conforming who might according to research have grown up to be gay, are being persuaded instead that they are transgender which is much more dangerous for them.

Young people are also being encouraged to escape traumas and difficulties by becoming transgender when this will not alleviate their state of mind in the long term.

But there was the transgender criminal ( biological male) who aided/encouraged the rape of a 4 year old by another paedophile. He was reported as being a female by Manchester Police and the BBC.

It will be.

Hadley Freeman has written about this. Her art covers a few topics that have their own threads on this board

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/indulging-killers-trans-delusions-is-dangerous-mrxfm5lfd

https://archive.ph/w40BN jump the paywall, it's fun

I didn't know Barbie Kardashian had been seen by the Tavistock!

Well said, Hadley.

The comments are pointing out her fudge. And her article is contradictory. She says:

"Pronouns are respect, activists insist. And I agree, which is why I generally refer to trans people by their preferred pronoun, as I would use anyone’s requested nickname. Be who you want, live your life. But what I can’t understand is this: why are the police and media respecting a convicted murderer who made cat soup and strangled a stranger for sexual kicks?"

What's she saying - when you torture and liquidise animals, and kill a man in cold blood, THEN we don't respect pronouns? But other times it's "respect"? What of other crimes where there's no murder? Like this one - is the PCC wrong? What's the new rule to avoid being labelled "Ultra" (as dreamt up by another Times columnist) - sexual offending and / or murder?

matthewbarber.co.uk/news/qpmnvig3e7wihfyk4iwh9ovcqxto46

It also seems that a statutory inquiry is now unavoidable as regards the GIDS.

Indulging any man’s delusions is dangerous. If you indulge the nice men, the bad men take advantage.

Quite. And how does anybody imagine someone goes from zero to murder? They don't. Testing and breaking boundaries, escalating behaviour, and what you can get away with are all part of what leads to especially violent behaviour. How does helping affirm delusions help anyone? It doesn't, it harms them. And maybe it harms others into the bargain.

Hadley Freeman has a comment piece in the Sunday Times:

I agree Rex.

I think she is trying to square the circle but she simply points out that it cannot be squared. The hypocrisy does seem to be rather stark when viewed like this.

And yes…. Who gets to decide where that arbitrary line between respectful use and not worthy of respectful use sits?

The dissonance alarm is clanging very loudly on this.

Ooops, sorry, entirely missed that Hadley Freeman's article had already been posted.

It was trying to square that circle that solidified my view that correct sex pronouns should always be used. If we use requested pronouns 'out of respect'. When do we make the change? At arrest? What about innocent until proven guilty? At conviction? What about witnesses at the trial? Maybe just the witnesses use pronouns naturally? How can you manage the trial with witnesses and lawyers using different pronouns? How about, if they are respectful to me, I'll be respectful in return? We'll, how respectful of women's existence is it to imagine that you, a male, can be one? And what about distressed, young people? Well, how helpful is it to them for us all to collude in their self harm?

Exactly. At what point in moving into women's spaces or the escalation of male pattern offending, are correct sex pronouns used?

I'd be grateful for a flowchart from The Times.

💯 The only reason this is not the ‘accepted view’, is because we live in a patriarchy.

I haven't read the article yet, but I was thinking of another issue with respectful pronouns. Even if Society generally decided to use requested pronouns up to a point everyone agreed on (eg, until a person is arrested/charged/ convicted) how long would it take for some legal "expert" to challenge that as being against that criminal's human rights?

Not long at all, I imagine. We're in a situation at the moment where all the relevant institutions in the criminal justice system are buying into gender ideology: the police, the courts, the media, the Bar Council, the Solicitors' Regulation Authority, the media regulators (IPSO and Ofcom). How do you begin to challenge that enormous edifice?

Agree re. pronouns, MN is also all over the place with them. We can, it seems, for a bad'un but precisely what constitutes a bad'un is a little unclear. So we fudge. As a game I quite enjoy it. As a concept , it's irritating. But, as I've said before, peaking can be a process. Some people are still at base camp and may stay there, but at least they've made the effort. They may even think they've summited. At least Hadley didn't indulge in name calling. Also her and Janice Turner (was it?) have thought about it, so give them time, they may look round... and then up.

I'm a fan of Hadley Freeman and have been ever since she was on the fashion desk and getting barred from shows. But, like a few other journalists at the moment, I think she's mixing up personal and professional behaviour.

Private conversations - be as respectful or disrespectful as you like and, long as it's not coercive, then I won't care. But if you write about the news for a living then I believe any respect is owed primarily to your readers. If you don't make it clear to them exactly what you're talking about then I don't think you're doing your job properly.

Or even, if you're uncomfortable doing that, perhaps because you have a relationship with the person concerned, then I will still make allowances if you use a disclaimer, e.g. ' X is a friend of mine so I am going to use preferred pronouns.'

We're in a gradual slide to a more balanced position at the moment, which is in effect that pronouns are an effort, a courtesy, made within a reciprocal social contract. They are not fact, they are not compelled, and without reciprocation and in situations where the person's sex is relevant such as with a serious violent or sexual crime committed, this service may well not be supplied.

This has been caused by attempts to compel, punish, convince all that it's illegal to misgender, coercion and basically pushing the boundaries until they broke. And by trying to force men, including violent, dangerous men of all agendas, into women's spaces with no regard or care whatsoever for what happens to women or how they are affected, so long as men with TQ+ identities encounter no limits to their wishes and freedoms.

As usual, the problem caused by the behaviour of the TQ+ political lobby is not something they're taking responsibility for, but blaming everyone else for not pretending harder and for meanly mentioning the problems and wanting them addressed when they know that talking about their negative experiences, those bits of reality, rapes etc, is so upsetting to that lobby. And yes, inevitably, everyone is losing patience and boundaries are getting stronger. Because most people are basically kind, and want to help and want to be nice, and will be to the point they realise they've been taken for a fool.

But if you write about the news for a living then I believe any respect is owed primarily to your readers.

And if you're reporting on a crime against another person, then your respect should be primarily for the victim of the crime and their relatives.

There clearly was an issue in the past, as highlighted at the start of this Sex Matters seminar:

It's arguable that the sex of the individual involved in the historic story is not public interest. It's certainly not relevant to the story. Maybe in that case the media could get away with not mentioning that he was male, or even suggesting he was female. Certainly you don't need "sex swap" in the headline.

But the problem now is clearly far, far, far worse.

You now have male-typical crime being reported as female, or men in "first" or "highest" female positions, and that disrespect to truth and the readers is far worse than the original disrespect to individuals being reported on.

Media's primary responsibility is to the truth and readers. The feelings of those being reported on is secondary. If you're more worried about subjects' feelings than truth or informing readers, journalism is the wrong profession.

Exactly

I agree. It seems journalistic codes need to be updated and a proper convention on data and ethics needs to be mandatory. I can only imagine somewhere along the line these have not been discussed and agreed upon from Universities pushing out media graduates and within the broadcasting houses themselves since the trans issue became more visible?

Media's primary responsibility is to the truth and readers. The feelings of those being reported on is secondary. If you're more worried about subjects' feelings than truth or informing readers, journalism is the wrong profession.

Yes, that's the point I was groping for. Thanks @NecessaryScene